There are three kinds of victims whenever someone goes on a violent rampage. First, there’s the direct victims–those killed or injured by the attack. Second, there’s the indirect victims–those connected to the direct victims, or those who sustain a personal negative consequence stemming from the incident.
And then there are the TV-viewing victims–those subjected to TV news stupidity while watching coverage of the event.
Most of us fit in the latter category. In the immediate aftermath of the incident it takes the form of baseless speculation about what happened. The anchors don’t have many details to relay, but they have to keep talking, so they make stuff up.
Within a few hours, after the initial shock starts to wear out, the news coverage partially shifts to personalizing the event to the viewers. Typically it employs a security expert or consultant to answer the timeless question: could this happen here? The guru will then walk the audience through a complex formula:
Local venue where people gather + access to weapons = Yep, it could happen here
If the news outfit is really on its game it will take the story one step further: what should you do if you are caught in a deadly rampage?
This Colorado TV news station takes us inside a mall shooting scenario:

“In a case like a mall shooting, you should avoid the threat,” says Grand Junction Police Department officer T.J. Rix.

Good thinking. Bonus points for thinking outside the box.

Authorities say they do have plans in place if a shooting happened here, however, mall security is being tight-lipped about what those plans actually are.
“All of our security officers go through a comprehensive training program,” says Paul Petersen, general manager of Mesa Mall.

In other words, they hope that they can disable the shooter before he or she kills very many people.

Police say if a shooter opened fire in a store with direct exits, you should go outside.

What if there’s no “direct” exits (whatever that means)? You shouldn’t try to get out through “indirect” exits?

If you’re in a store wedged between others, it’s best to go to the back, get down, and stay out of sight.

I’m not sure why you would be “wedged between others” unless you were trying to cram through an exit. I’m glad it mentions staying out of sight; that’s so counter-intuitive in the midst of random gunfire. If there are no exits in the back, why would you want to get trapped there?

You should also be aware of your surroundings and don’t put yourself in a vulnerable position.

So much for my cleaver plan of aimlessly running around in wild panic.
So there you have it–news you can use. In the event of a mall shooting, run or hide! Who needs natural instincts when you have TV news teaching survival tips?

Dan Froomkin has an article which points out how the White House subtly changed its rhetoric regarding the Iranian nuclear threat. Prior to August, President Bush talked of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. But something happened in the August 6-9 time frame. Since then, Bush has discussed Iran’s desire to build nuclear weapons, or acquiring the knowledge to build nuclear weapons, or enriching uranium. The logical explanation for the change is that in August Bush learned of the intelligence assessment that Iran had halted work on a weapon; since then he has done a rhetorical tap dance around making the specific claim that Iran is manufacturing a bomb.
It’s bad enough that Bush has gone on for the last four months leading Americans to the unsubstantiated–and likely false–conclusion that Iran is building a nuclear weapon (remember the World War III threat?). But when the leaked NIE exposed his deception, he added insult to injury with a bogus ignorance defense.
How bad must things be at the top when the “President doesn’t know what’s going on” claim is apparently their best spin?
Keith Olbermann gets shrill:

Political reporters and commentators are descending on Iowa and New Hampshire as the caucuses and primary approach.
It’s amusing to listen to the talking heads, almost in a reverential tone, discuss how “serious” Iowa and New Hampshire voters are about the presidential election.
Two things about this:
(1) What do they mean by serious? And how do they know how serious the voters are? Do they take exit polls asking: Where you serious about the vote you just cast?
(2) The implication in emphasizing the seriousness of these voters is that people in other states must be unserious about their vote. Presumably, they must go to the polls, wait in line, pick a random candidate, or doodle all their ballots.
OK, I confess that a few times I’ve cast a “statement” or “protest:” vote rather than choosing the candidate who I thought was most qualified. But I’ve done this in contests where the winner was a foregone conclusion. By the time Tennesseans get to weigh in during the primaries, the race is often over. So what’s the point?
In contrast, Iowa and New Hampshire voters, being first, determine the momentum of the primary season. They get all the campaign and media attention, so of course the atmosphere is a bit different there.
I’m pretty sure that if candidates were tripping over each other in every town in Tennessee, or Delaware, or Kansas, the voters in those states would also be “serious” enough to pay attention to the campaign. I don’t think there’s anything special in the drinking water in the Granite or Hawkeye State.

Yesterday I reached my 2007 cycling mileage goal of 5,000 miles. Back in August, I didn’t think I was going to make it. But thanks to a huge September and October, I whittled the gap down to a manageable amount before colder weather and short daylight set in. Here’s the monthly breakdown:

Month	Miles
January	295
February	245
March	319
April	438
May	630
June	501
July	407
August	489
September	735
October	599
November	335
December	51
Total	5,048

5,000 miles is my largest annual total to date. In 2006, rode 4,858 miles.
My key in reaching the goal is consistency. When the weather was decent I tried to ride at least 100 miles a week. In May, June, September, and October, I got enough extra miles in to cover for the winter shortfall. The drought wasn’t good for the environment, but it was good for cycling.
I’ve been fortunate this year: no accidents, no flat tires, minimal mechanical problems, and I didn’t even get rained on very often. In short, virtually all of the 5,000 miles were good ones.

Heh.
What the list not so subtlety highlights is the tendency of “experts” to cite global warming as a catchall explanation for phenomena they don’t yet understand.
Global warming is a potentially-dangerous problem which may alter life in the coming decades. But if you continue to yell “wolf” when you don’t know if there’s a wolf around the corner or not, pretty soon people will start ignoring you.